A constantly recurring YEC argument is that "mutations don't add up", a vague claim that evolution is insufficient to explain some undisclosed trait or set of traits.

And yet, in all the time that I have been posting here, no YEC has ever managed to produce the actual data upon which that claim is based. The YEC team has been asked repeatedly to giveone single example complete with data that supports the claim that "mutations don't add up" and the YEC team has repeatedly failed.

Given that the majority of biologists (people who are actually trained in this field !) maintain that evolution is sufficient to explain the development of life on Earth, I think it's long past time for the YEC team to produce the evidential basis for their amateur claim to the contrary.

So YECs, let's see your math and science --- let's see the actual numbers from a real world example where evolution could not produce a trait or set of traits.

If the YEC team can not produce a real world example, then let's all agree that this is nothing more than the amateur opinion of a group of people with an emotional vested interest in discrediting science and that this opinion is of no use or interest to a discussion of real evolution.

In addition, certain poster(s) demand a beneficial mutation rate or percentage (as if it's a static number and not environment/selection dependent). When those certain poster(s) are asked what their model is for the number, what dimensional units it should be in, and whether it's a published model, one gets...nothing.

I predict this post will be unanswered even though the thread will be responded to by a certain poster(s).

In addition, certain poster(s) demand a beneficial mutation rate or percentage (as if it's a static number and not environment/selection dependent). When those certain poster(s) are asked what their model is for the number, what dimensional units it should be in, and whether it's a published model, one gets...nothing.

Oh it gets more blatant than that.

They insist on the exact rate, and after having it explained time and time again that it is circumstantial, not absolute, and then go on about how it's too low, so terribly tiny... until you point them at an experiment with an observed 16% beneficial mutation rate - at which point they suddenly change their tune, and say it didn't count, and was only that high because of 'harsh circumstances'.

If mutations do indeed add up....link us to a web site that shows us how.

The web site must be clear and on a level a high school kid can understand....after all they are the one's who are being force fed this evo-minded false science.

Currently the sysyem of eolutionism is based upon faith. I know this because no one here has been able to provide a consice model that shows evolutionism in action. All I have seen is a bunch of little snippets strung together and presented as some sort of mumbo-jumbo evidence.

If mutations do indeed add up....link us to a web site that shows us how.

The web site must be clear and on a level a high school kid can understand....after all they are the one's who are being force fed this evo-minded false science.

Currently the sysyem of eolutionism is based upon faith. I know this because no one here has been able to provide a consice model that shows evolutionism in action. All I have seen is a bunch of little snippets strung together and presented as some sort of mumbo-jumbo evidence.

Point us to the link.....If not, then you must retract.

Your failure to understand the science in no way reflects poorly on the science proving evolution.

My claim is that you can not produce a single real-world example of a trait or suite of traits that evolution is insufficient to explain. You would need to have the numbers and data in hand to be able to demonstrate that lack.

If you can provide such an example, then I have to retract my claim. But we both know that this particular YEC bumper sticker isn't based on data or evidence or science --- it's just more YEC gibberish. Just ask all the trained people that work in this field, Christian and not.

So, while I will never have to retract this claim, you really should be retracting your claim about "mutations not adding up" since you can't provide one iota of evidence to support it.